Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Phys-l madness



If you look at my previous posts, you will see that I have carefully made
distinctions between religious groups. Lewis has cast his lot with a group
that has made a statement of faith that there can be no global warming.
That probably biases his analysis.

Certainly there are evangelical and main line congregations which have
embraced the idea that global warming can be accepted and that we need to
conserve our environment as part of stewardship. As a matter of fact, the
majority of religious groups do not oppose the idea on theological grounds,
although some members might. These groups accept the current science, but
are not wedded to the idea of global warming. But the religious groups
which are opposed to it seem to be doing so on theological grounds. Most of
the religious opposition has linked global warming with evolution and other
moral issues. This is illogical!

But the resignation has played into the hands of the vociferous anti-science
religious groups. My point is that the inflammatory language in the
resignation is designed to shut off debate and it plays into the hands of
the "religious right" which denies global warming and evolution. These
groups are powerful because they are much more vociferous than the "pro"
groups.

We have to recognize that these groups exist, and that they are a powerful
anti-science force. The fact that they allied themselves strongly with
Republicans has pushed their anti-science agenda into the political realm.
This is changing, as they have realized that such an alliance can backfire,
and can damage their credibility. This is extremely evident in TX politics
where the Republican governor pushes for prayer in public schools and for
the teaching of the theistic ID model instead of evolution. The state
school board is likewise dominated by Republican anti-science members.

Whether you think the current climate models are fairly correct and
accurate, or whether you think they are way off is not the issue that I have
raised. The issue is that the debate is being framed by anti-science
individuals who are using powerful theistic arguments. We all need to
understand how this is not advancing good science.

Everyone on this list needs to have some understanding of the terms that
these people use. For example ID (Intelligent Design) is very different
from young Earth creationism. It presumes that life can not arrive by
chance because it is too improbable, so there must have been divine
intervention. Of course this probability is impossible to calculate! Young
Earth creationism presumes the biblical account in toto, of course they
"iron out" inconsistencies. Old Earth creationism accepts the time scale,
but completely denies any possibility of evolution. In other words they
stretch the 7 days of Gensis by saying that a day does not mean literally 24
hours. One can not have a rational scientific discussion with young Earth
creationists if it comes anywhere near their particular paradigm.

A good look at how religion has influenced our country and framed the debate
is in the current PBS series "God in America". We can not afford to ignore
this important social force. There are signs that perhaps the alliance
between the Republicans and the "religious right" is weakening. But we are
still in an era where it is strong. I remember the news reports of
Eisenhower going to church on Easter, but beyond that nobody paid any
attention to his religious philosophy, so the current political/religious
alliance is recent. We have gone back to the Scopes trial hysteria.

And using the "92 thesis" analogy is just as much a religious appeal as
saying the earth was created as a stable self-correcting system by God. I
don't see the pro global warming camp using religious justifications for
their conviction. They do use moral ideas to justify intervention.

We have failed to educate students about the "scientific methods"!!!

John M. Clement
Houston, TX



I'm not sure how this was intended, but a possible implication is
that religious = anti-science = nuts.

That may be your view John, I do not know, but any implication that
religious people per se would be against science and therefore would
want to trash anthropocentric global warming theories seems a poor
generalisation.

For example, some religious people actually would 'welcome' global
warming as fulfilling prophecy. I doubt many religious scientists are
likely to be in that camp, but to be religious does not mean taking a
particular view on global warming.